8 responses to “The Atheist Sex Scandal Part 4”

The difference between this and the Catholic case is that atheism is not a single centralized organization. Many of the atheist organizations (which are what would be more directly more comparable to the Church than what some popular jerk says on YouTube) actually have been making policy changes in the right direction.

The atheists involved in this issue are part of a centralized group. Most of the people accused are a part of the JREF foundation, and most of those who were harassed either worked for those men at JREF or were hired to speak at TAM. Krauss was the only one accused (well, and Bill Nye, but I hadn’t heard about that accusation until I began this project) that was not part of JREF, but he is a popular speaker involved in the wider atheist movement (that is, the big name atheists who are interested in fighting for atheists being seen in a more positive light by society at large). The reason I brng in the whole atheist movement is because a lot of popular atheists in the wider movement have criticized those who were harassed and supported those who did the harassing. Why do their words matter? Because people listen to them.

Very insightful. As an atheist, I more than kind of hate that Richard Dawkins has been taken up as the “poster child” of atheism. Just because someone is very vocal about a topic does not mean he speaks for everyone that shares that one particular world view. Nothing can take away from the tremendous body of scientific work he has produced, but seriously – he is such an ass.

Many of the things I’ve heard surrounding this and especially with atheism+ has been to shut down criticism of any type. I think Richard Carrier is great, but when he declared that you are either “with us or against us” regarding atheism+ even though I agree with him on just about everything else, left me feeling like something was fundamentally wrong. The pairing of atheism with feminism is a problem because not all atheists are feminists and not all feminists are atheists. Atheists just don’t have god beliefs. It just so happens that many atheists are progressive, but not all are. Also, not being offended is a very difficult state to guarantee. I’ve always abided by the mantra “don’t feed the trolls.” This just seems like good advice. Being an atheist doesn’t guarantee anything in terms of beliefs.

I think the biggest problem is the fact that the atheist movement is very much an old boys club. I think atheism+ was meant to make atheism more accessible to women. But even without atheism+, it’s sympathizers would still find themselves supporting these women and those opposed to it would still be saying stupid things. I think atheism+ just makes the divide more obvious.

Thank you for highlighting this. It’s something that’s always bothered me since “Elevatorgate” became a thing. Atheism is amazing, but like everything in the World, it certainly has a dark side. Likely, with time, this will only get better and better for everyone involved.

Thanks for the extensive collection. Seeing it all in one place provides a new perspective on just how bad these people can be.

I reckon it’s because these particular atheists think that not believing in God automatically makes them “smart”. Therefore they don’t actually employ critical thinking. Sure, they’ll tell themselves little stories about how they use “logic” and “reason” – but the sad fact is that they don’t. They use the words to help attract others; for instance I recall reading a thesis that mentioned that atheist clubs/movements/societies tended to use those terms as sort of flags, they were terms that were used to unite groups rather than refer to actual methods, much in the way people at a Goth club might use “alternative” as a buzzword to identify themselves to each other.

Their collective “logic”, “reason” and “intelligence” is just like that – nothing but a sartorial choice, and absolutely nothing to do with what is going on in their heads. Unless your argument looks like it was ripped from a Douglas Hofstadter book or had to be typed up in LaTeX, the odds are you’re not actually using logic the thing, only “logic” the buzzword.

Take Dawkins’ recent one on Downs syndrome, saying that his stance to abort pregnancies that have Downs detected “logically follows” from the pro-choice argument – no it doesn’t, because the pro-choice argument just addresses the legality that the option should be available, it says nothing about whether it is moral to do so or otherwise. You can’t therefore extend this argument into advice about what someone should do. Apparently this is “logic” and “reason” at work… and if you dare challenge that, then you’ll just get a screaming torrent of abuse in return. Are those people seriously so blind to the irony of holding their anti-theistic views and raising one lone man up to a level beyond criticism? And it’s not just the fanboys – the reactions of Dawkins or Harris or Penn Jillette to active criticism isn’t the calm, collected and reasoned responses that they preach. It’s to shout the others down, or play “well you just misunderstood me, that’s your faul!” and leave it at that.

The other angle to look at when you’re talking about the YouTubers is to look at why they’re famous in the first place. They did it by “pwning” creationists. This is not hard. Refuting NephilmFree’s assertion that the Global Flood fired water so high into the air that it impacted the moon and caused all the craters we see is not an arduous task requiring the brain of Einstein. These guys are simply not as bright as their fans think they are – it’s just an illusion caused by them standing next to such excessively dumb arguments. So is anyone really surprised that when they step outside their comfort zones and attempt to do something original they fail so spectacularly? I’m certainly not (though I admit this statement has serious hindsight bias).

It’s a bad time to be an atheist, because the people who put themselves out their to “represent” us are such assholes.